Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumor size in architectural distortions: a comparison of DM, DBT, US, CEM, and MRI.

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING
Javier Azcona Sáenz, Javier Molero Calafell, Marta Román Expósito, Elisenda Vall Foraster, Laura Comerma Blesa, Rodrigo Alcántara Souza, María Del Mar Vernet Tomás
{"title":"Preoperative estimation of the pathological breast tumor size in architectural distortions: a comparison of DM, DBT, US, CEM, and MRI.","authors":"Javier Azcona Sáenz, Javier Molero Calafell, Marta Román Expósito, Elisenda Vall Foraster, Laura Comerma Blesa, Rodrigo Alcántara Souza, María Del Mar Vernet Tomás","doi":"10.1007/s00330-025-11502-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to compare the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer size in architectural distortions (ADs). Additionally, it assesses whether including thin spicules in mammography measurements affects accuracy.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We planned a retrospective analysis of invasive breast cancers presenting as ADs in our breast screening program between 2018 and 2022. Tumor size was measured in mm using DM, DBT, US, MRI, and CEM. Measurements were compared to the surgical specimen sizes. Two measurement approaches for DM and DBT were applied, considering and not considering thin spicules. T-student test was used to compare mean sizes across imaging techniques with the surgical specimen.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study encompassed 59 female patients with 63 ADs. Mean age was 60.1 years (Standard Deviation (SD): 6.3). The cancers included four histological subtypes, ductal (69.8%), lobular (23.8%), tubular (4.8%), and micropapillary (1.6%). All imaging techniques, except for US (mean: 12.4 mm, SD: 5.7), overestimated tumor size compared to histology (mean: 16.40 mm, SD: 9). CEM, MRI, and DBT without thin spicules closely matched histological size. Including thin spicules in DM and DBT led to overestimation. Concordance was highest with CEM (75%) and MRI (67.6%). No significant differences were found between ductal and lobular carcinoma.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For preoperative tumor size estimation of breast cancer in ADs, DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and MRI seemed most accurate. Including thin spicules in mammography leads to overestimation.</p><p><strong>Key points: </strong>Question Identifying the most accurate imaging technique for preoperative tumor staging of architectural distortions (ADs) is crucial now that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is widely implemented. Findings Measuring thin wispy spicules in ADs on digital (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be avoided, as they consistently overestimate pathological tumor stage. Clinical relevance Precise tumor size estimation in ADs is critical for proper staging and treatment planning. This study favors the use of DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for optimal accuracy.</p>","PeriodicalId":12076,"journal":{"name":"European Radiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-025-11502-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to compare the accuracy of digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) in the preoperative evaluation of breast cancer size in architectural distortions (ADs). Additionally, it assesses whether including thin spicules in mammography measurements affects accuracy.

Materials and methods: We planned a retrospective analysis of invasive breast cancers presenting as ADs in our breast screening program between 2018 and 2022. Tumor size was measured in mm using DM, DBT, US, MRI, and CEM. Measurements were compared to the surgical specimen sizes. Two measurement approaches for DM and DBT were applied, considering and not considering thin spicules. T-student test was used to compare mean sizes across imaging techniques with the surgical specimen.

Results: The study encompassed 59 female patients with 63 ADs. Mean age was 60.1 years (Standard Deviation (SD): 6.3). The cancers included four histological subtypes, ductal (69.8%), lobular (23.8%), tubular (4.8%), and micropapillary (1.6%). All imaging techniques, except for US (mean: 12.4 mm, SD: 5.7), overestimated tumor size compared to histology (mean: 16.40 mm, SD: 9). CEM, MRI, and DBT without thin spicules closely matched histological size. Including thin spicules in DM and DBT led to overestimation. Concordance was highest with CEM (75%) and MRI (67.6%). No significant differences were found between ductal and lobular carcinoma.

Conclusion: For preoperative tumor size estimation of breast cancer in ADs, DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and MRI seemed most accurate. Including thin spicules in mammography leads to overestimation.

Key points: Question Identifying the most accurate imaging technique for preoperative tumor staging of architectural distortions (ADs) is crucial now that contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is widely implemented. Findings Measuring thin wispy spicules in ADs on digital (DM) and digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) should be avoided, as they consistently overestimate pathological tumor stage. Clinical relevance Precise tumor size estimation in ADs is critical for proper staging and treatment planning. This study favors the use of DBT excluding thin spicules, CEM, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for optimal accuracy.

建筑变形中病理乳腺肿瘤大小的术前估计:DM、DBT、US、CEM 和 MRI 的比较。
研究目的本研究旨在比较数字乳腺 X 线照相术(DM)、数字乳腺断层扫描(DBT)、超声波(US)、磁共振成像(MRI)和对比增强乳腺 X 线照相术(CEM)在建筑变形(AD)乳腺癌大小术前评估中的准确性。此外,它还评估了在乳腺 X 射线照相术测量中加入薄骨刺是否会影响准确性:我们计划对 2018 年至 2022 年期间在我们的乳腺筛查项目中表现为 AD 的浸润性乳腺癌进行回顾性分析。使用 DM、DBT、US、MRI 和 CEM 测量肿瘤大小,单位为毫米。测量结果与手术标本尺寸进行了比较。对 DM 和 DBT 采用了两种测量方法,即考虑和不考虑薄骨刺。采用T-学生检验比较不同成像技术与手术标本的平均尺寸:该研究包括 59 名女性患者,共 63 个 AD。平均年龄为 60.1 岁(标准差(SD):6.3)。癌症包括四种组织学亚型:导管型(69.8%)、小叶型(23.8%)、管状型(4.8%)和微乳头型(1.6%)。与组织学(平均:16.40 毫米,标准差:9)相比,除 US(平均:12.4 毫米,标准差:5.7)外,所有成像技术都高估了肿瘤的大小。CEM、MRI和DBT(不含薄骨刺)与组织学大小非常接近。在 DM 和 DBT 中加入薄骨刺会导致高估。CEM(75%)和 MRI(67.6%)的一致性最高。导管癌和小叶癌之间无明显差异:结论:对于ADs乳腺癌的术前肿瘤大小估计,DBT(不包括薄骨刺)、CEM和MRI似乎最为准确。结论:对于AD患者术前肿瘤大小的估计,DBT不包括薄棘层、CEM和MRI似乎最准确,而乳腺X光检查包括薄棘层则会导致估计过高:问题 在造影剂增强乳腺 X 线摄影术(CEM)广泛应用的今天,确定最准确的造影技术对建筑变形(ADs)进行术前肿瘤分期至关重要。研究结果 应避免在数字(DM)和数字乳腺断层合成(DBT)术中测量AD中的细小缕状棘突,因为它们总是高估病理肿瘤分期。临床意义 精确估计 AD 的肿瘤大小对于正确分期和制定治疗计划至关重要。本研究倾向于使用DBT(不包括薄骨刺)、CEM和磁共振成像(MRI)来获得最佳准确性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
European Radiology
European Radiology 医学-核医学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
8.50%
发文量
874
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: European Radiology (ER) continuously updates scientific knowledge in radiology by publication of strong original articles and state-of-the-art reviews written by leading radiologists. A well balanced combination of review articles, original papers, short communications from European radiological congresses and information on society matters makes ER an indispensable source for current information in this field. This is the Journal of the European Society of Radiology, and the official journal of a number of societies. From 2004-2008 supplements to European Radiology were published under its companion, European Radiology Supplements, ISSN 1613-3749.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信